Motility of the Ocular Prosthesis in Anophthalmic Patients: Objective and Patient-perceived Findings

One-stage Intraconal Volume Modification for Exposed and Nonexposed Ball Implants

PURPOSE

To assess long-term outcomes and reinterventions for exposed and nonexposed intraconal orbital implants after single-stage socket revisional surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective case-note review of patients with exposed or nonexposed orbital ball implants, who underwent a single-stage ball exchange (Group I) or ball removal with dermis-fat graft (Group II); Group I was subdivided as having either exposed (A) or nonexposed (B) implants. Outcomes were compared with similar cohorts undergoing multistage surgery.

RESULTS

Of 172 patients (54% male), 153 (89%) underwent ball exchange (Group I) and 19 (11%) had dermis-fat graft (Group II). With a mean follow up of 7.8 years, Group I patients without ball exposure (Group IB) had a slightly higher rate of reintervention for persistent volume deficit (21% vs. 9%; p = 0.163) and implant migration (6% vs. 0%; p = 0.091), while Group IA patients-having surgery for exposed implants-had more reexposures (7% vs. 3%; p = 0.270). Single-stage and 2-stage surgery had similar reintervention rates, with the exception of a trend toward fewer volume enhancements for those with nonexposed implants (17% vs. 30%; p = 0.380), and a shorter time to (re)exposure for exposed implants after 2-stage procedures (mean 0.33 vs. 3.5 years; p = 0.571). Group II patients required further volume enhancement in 32% of 1-stage procedures, and one patient needed graft removal.

CONCLUSION

Single-stage volume modification is effective and the results are comparable to staged surgery for either exposed or nonexposed implants. Most patients report a stable prosthesis and satisfactory cosmesis, after a faster rehabilitation.